Tom Brokaw at BrownFaulty comparisons and bad rhetoric

While not as prominent a figure in my lifetime as in the generation before me, I figured it would be worthwhile to see Tom Brokaw in person, and to hear the voice that filled the living rooms of so many American households before me. Known as one of the “Big Three” news anchors, along with Peter Jennings of ABC and Dan Rather of CBS, Tom Brokaw was anchor and managing editor of NBC from 1983 to 2004. The Office of the President sponsored his lecture on April 21 in the Salomon Center for Teaching. Although his accomplishments may be impressive – such as being the first American to interview Mikhail Gorbachev and the only American correspondent to report, in person, the fall of the Berlin Wall – I found his talk less than superb. Full of unfounded and dire comparisons of the current U.S. situation in Iraq to the Vietnam conflict forty years ago, his words were little more than a weak attempt to stir a liberal audience.

Brokaw began his address on the light side, initially stating that he wanted the lecture to be instead a “conversation.” The packed Salomon room was quick to laugh when he sarcastically mentioned the effects of Harvard’s having rejected his application: he was forced to lead a life “wandering in the wilderness.” After a few more jokes, Brokaw quickly progressed to the meat of his message, claiming that America is at an “important passage in time.” Surprisingly, this passage in time is similar to that which came during the presidency of Lyndon Baynes Johnson, at least according to Brokaw.

Let us explore the reasons why Tom Brokaw might assert such an obscure claim. Brokaw began his history lesson of the 1960s by mentioning LBJ and the Vietnam conflict. At the time, Johnson was wrongly assuring Americans that Vietnam was making considerable progress. Of course the Democrats in the audience quickly drew the comparison between Johnson’s shallow words and President Bush’s comments on the Iraq conflict, but this link is hardly justified.

The Vietnam conflict and today’s conflict in Iraq are starkly different, mainly because the former was destined to be a disaster and the latter has every chance to be a success. First, American soldiers were ill-prepared to fight in the Vietnam terrain and were not trained adequately for the type of warfare that the conflict entailed. U.S. soldiers today are very well equipped to fight in Iraq. Second, a majority of South Vietnamese did not back U.S. involvement in the fight against the Viet Cong, whereas liberated Iraqis rejoice in Sadam Hussein’s removal and are actively involved in fighting the minority resistance. Third, the U.S. armed forces never succeeded in diminishing the Viet Cong threat throughout the Vietnam conflict, but today in 2008 there is an obvious decrease in the violence in Iraq. On average, the Vietnam conflict saw substantially more American casualties per year than have occurred since the start of the Iraq conflict.

Brokaw continued his conversation by mentioning the “moral crusaders” of the 1960s. He praised Eugene McCarthy for challenging Johnson, a member of his own party, with an anti-Vietnam platform. Martin Luther King, Jr., was next in line to receive glorification due to his non-violent protests in favor of civil rights for blacks. However, it would be incorrect to refer to any moral crusaders today, whether the title is valid or not, in the same light as either McCarthy or MLK. As I have already stated, today’s war and the Vietnam War are incomparable. Though I would never claim that America has achieved perfect equality in rights and opportunities for every American, the discrepancies in King’s era were much more apparent.

Springboarding off the topic of activists in the 60s, Brokaw then challenged the audience to take action. At the turning point of his speech, Brokaw articulated, “Forty years later in the election of 2008 we need to take stock in what we are keeping [from the decade of 1960] and what we are leaving behind.” In Brokaw’s words, the upcoming election is the “most important election since 1968.” Brokaw’s following advice, interestingly, was rather contradictory.

With regard to the conflict in Iraq, full of “broken promises” and “broken premises” (a statement in itself which is conflicting since we are succeeding in reducing terrorism and in bringing freedom to a previously oppressed people), Brokaw recommended we “find a far more effective way” to deal with Islamic rage. (But I am not so sure peace talks with terrorist leaders will solve the problem, as Obama claims.) He then went on to say that Americans still need to honor our men and women in uniform, no matter how much we might disagree with the war. Here is a thought: since most of our military wants to finish the war against terrorism, how about we honor our soldiers by listening to them? Brokaw even complimented Americans who in World War II “rebuilt their enemies,” like Germany, by investing in the country’s industry and installing a government. Iraq will see the same beneficial results if we do not pull U.S. troops out of the country recklessly.

After an inspirational story about how United States reached the moon in 1969, Brokaw closed with the words of Steward Brand saying, “It is more important what unites us, not what divides us.” I agree with this statement. I listened to Brokaw preach for an hour about the illogical similarities between now and the 1960s, and as usual, I observed attentive liberals who were mesmerized by the exaggerated, distorted assertions that supported their own personal agendas. Democrats should heed Brokaw’s words, stop dividing America, and see the light, so that we can stand united.